Supreme Court of India
ANIL KUMAR SOTI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP) on 23 November 2021
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 7 S.C.R.
AANIL KUMAR SOTI
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH THROUGHCOLLECTOR BIJNORE (UP)
(Civil Appeal No. 6919 of 2021)
B
NOVEMBER 23, 2021
[M. R. SHAH AND SANJIV KHANNA, JJ.]
Land Acquisition Act, 1894: s. 4 – Land acquisition – Marketvalue/Compensation – Determination of – Held: While determiningCthe market value/compensation, previous instances of acquisitionin proximity for location and potential of land acquisition alongwith cumulative increase is relevant consideration – On facts, inrespect of land acquired by notification 16.05.1981, claimantjustified in seeking compensation of Rs.15,402/- per acre – RelianceDplaced upon the judgment and award passed by the Reference Courtawarding compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre, in another casewith respect to the acquisition of the land of the very same village,by notification dated 19.12.1981, considering the sale deedexemplar dated 23.12.1980 – Time gap between two notificationsu/s. 4 only seven months and there were no material changes duringEthe said period – Furthermore, judgment and award passed by theReference Court in that case determining the compensation atRs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State hasaccepted the same, thus, the appellants entitled to compensation atRs.15,402/- per acre.FAllowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the instant case, notification under Section 4 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been issued on 16.05.1981by which the High Court has determined the compensation atRs.7,100/- per acre. However, with respect to the land acquiredGof the very same village for which the notification under Section4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981, the Reference Court inanother case determined and awarded the compensation atRs.15,402/- per acre. Having gone through the judgment andaward passed by the Reference Court in another case determiningHthe compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre, the Reference Court had considered the sale deed exemplar of the year 1978.Therefore, it is not the case that in another case the sale deedexemplar relied upon was for the period between 16.05.1981(acquisition of the land in the instant case) and 19.12.1981 (dateof acquisition in another case). As per the settled preposition oflaw while determining the market value/compensation, previousinstances of acquisition in proximity for location and potential ofland acquisition along with cumulative increase is relevantconsideration. In the instant case, time gap between twonotifications under Section 4 of the Act is only seven months.Nothing has been pointed out with respect to any material changesfor the period between 16.05.1981 and 16.12.1981, time gapbetween the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act. Thejudgment and award passed by the Reference Court in that casedetermining the market value/compensation at Rs.15,402/- peracre has attained the finality and the State has accepted the sameby withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award.Therefore, in the instant circumstances, the appellants would beentitled to the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre with all otherstatutory benefits. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby modified. [Para 7, 8][437-D-H; 438-A-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.6919 of2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2019 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in First Appeal No.440 of 1989.
Piyush Sharma, Adv. for the Appellants.
Sakha Ram Singh, Sr. Adv., Rajeev Kumar Dubey, AshiwanMishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad in First Appeal No. 440 of 1989, by which the High Court haspartly allowed the said appeal preferred by the appellants herein – originalclaimants and has determined the market value of the lands acquired at AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
ARs.7,100/- per acre only, original land owners have preferred the presentappeal.
2. That the appellants’ lands situated at village Rawali came to beacquired for public purpose. A notification under Section 4 of the LandAcquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was issued onB16.05.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award anddetermined the compensation at Rs.5,218.39/- per acre. At the instancesof the claimants a Reference was made to the District Court underSection 18 of the ACT claiming compensation of Rs.12,000/- per acre.The Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.5,218.39/-per acre to Rs.6,696.70/- per acre with all other statutory benefits whichCmay be available under the Act. The appellants herein preferred theappeal before the High Court. The claimants prayed the compensationof Rs.15,402/- per acre relying upon the judgment and award passed bythe Reference Court in another case with respect to the acquisition ofthe land of the very village, but with respect to the notification issuedDunder Section 4 of the Act dated 19.12.1981. That by the impugnedjudgment and order and relying upon and considering the sale deedexemplar dated 23.12.1980, the High Court has partly allowed the saidappeal and has determined and awarded the compensation at the rate ofRs.7,100/- per acre.
E3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgmentand order passed by the High Court, enhancing the amount ofcompensation to Rs.7,100/- per acre only the original claimants havepreferred the present appeal.
4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – originalFclaimants has vehemently submitted that the High Court has materiallyerred in determining and awarding the compensation of Rs.7,100/- peracre only.
4.1 It is submitted that for the acquisition of the land of the veryvillage but notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on19.12.1981 the Reference Court determined and awarded theGcompensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre. It is submitted that the ReferenceCourt in that case relied upon the sale deed exemplar of the year 1978and thereafter determined the market value of the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre. It is submitted that the appeal against the judgmentand award passed by the Reference Court in that case determining andH
awarding the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre has been subsequentlywithdrawn. It is submitted that therefore the Government has acceptedthe judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with respect tothe land acquired of the same village but for which the notification underSection 4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981. It is submitted thattherefore the appellants are also entitled to the compensation ofRs.15,402/- per acre.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Statehas submitted that in the present case the High Court has rightlydetermined the compensation at Rs.7,100/- per acre considering the saledeed exemplar dated 23.12.1980 which as such can be said to beproximate/nearer to the date of the acquisition of the land. It is submittedthat therefore the interference of this court in exercise of power underArticle 136 of the Constitution of India is not called for.
6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respectiveparties at length.
7. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in disputethat in the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act has beenissued on 16.05.1981 by which the High Court has determined thecompensation at Rs.7,100/- per acre. However, it is required to be notedthat with respect to the land acquired of the very same village for whichthe notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 19.12.1981, theReference Court in another case determined and awarded thecompensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre. Having gone through the judgmentand award passed by the Reference Court in another case determiningthe compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre (which is heavily relied uponby the claimants in the present case) the Reference Court had consideredthe sale deed exemplar of the year 1978. Therefore, it is not the casethat in another case the sale deed exemplar relied upon was for theperiod between 16.05.1981 (acquisition of the land in the present case)and 19.12.1981 (date of acquisition in another case). As per the settledpreposition of law while determining the market value/compensation,previous instances of acquisition in proximity for location and potentialof land acquisition along with cumulative increase is relevantconsideration. In the present case, time gap between two notificationsunder Section 4 of the Act is only seven months. Nothing has beenpointed out with respect to any material changes for the period between16.05.1981 and 16.12.1981 - time gap between the two notifications AB
C
D
E
F
G
H
Aunder Section 4 of the Act. On the contrary, after the judgment andaward passed by the Reference Court with respect to the land acquiredof the same village for which notification under Section 4 was issued on19.12.1981, the Reference Court determined the compensation atRs.15,402/- per acre. The Reference Court in that case relied upon thesale deed exemplar of 1978. The judgment and award passed by theBReference Court in that case determining the market value/compensationat Rs.15,402/- per acre has attained the finality and the State has acceptedthe same by withdrawing the appeal against the said judgment and award.Therefore, in the present circumstances, the appellants shall be entitledto the compensation at Rs.15,402/- per acre.
C8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, thepresent appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed bythe High Court is hereby modified and it is held that appellants shall beentitled to the compensation for land acquired at Rs.15,402/- per acrewith all other statutory benefits which may be available under the ActDsubject to payment of deficient Court fees, if any. The present appeal isallowed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case thereshall be no order as to costs.
E
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
F
G
H